Indiana Jones 5: July 19, 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

Z dweller

Well-known member
AndyLGR said:
I alluded to this in an earlier post and this sums it up perfectly. Its exactly why I feel Indy 5 will be straight out of the book of the original films, (in particular Raiders and TLC), something that takes you back in to that style of movie.
...
I feel confident (purely based on what Disney did with TFA) that they know exactly what they need to do to get the Indy films back on track.
I agree with your premise above, but not with your conclusion.

The ONLY way to really go back to the roots of the series is to place at least part of the story in the 1920s or 30s through flashbacks played by a younger actor.

Using Ford alone for the entire movie is simply not going to work with the younger fans, like Finn said, and would actually move the franchise further away from its roots due to the limitations imposed by Harry's age, coupled with the "wrong" time period.

Why should Disney risk such an approach, when they can just replicate TFA's success by using the original star's pulling power AND the raw energy of a (hopefully brilliant) new, younger star?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Walecs said:
Indy getting younger because he drank from the Fountain of Youth

Obviously, I hate this idea for the same reason you do, but I doubt it would appeal to Disney, either. When they reboot the saga, they don't just want a younger Indy, they want a younger Indy in the 30s. If he suddenly gets his youth back through magic water in the 60s, he's still in the 60s.
 

Mike00spy

Well-known member
This post might ramble a bit, but here goes:

A) I think we need to relax with Skull's negative reaction. Star Wars had 3 terrible films. TERRIBLE films. And as long as TFA was better than those, people ate it up. Look, I loved it, too, but the film's issues will become grating on many viewers as it ages. Think, the next time you watch Star Wars in "Episode" order, you will have 3 Death Stars blown up in 4 films. Not good. James Bond had plenty of stinkers over the years and the franchise is just fine. One bad film hasn't ended them. Transitioning from this, I don't think Disney really has to reinvent the wheel here- just give audiences a well made movie in terms of stunts, script, acting, etc.

B) I still think people picking on Skull's aliens and/or 50's vibe are only doing so b/c the rest of the movie's parts weren't up to par. The biggest problem with Skull was the too light tone and cheesy (at times) script. This shouldn't be that hard to course correct, right?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Brilliant Assessment

Finn said:
TFA was the most coldly, calculatingly made piece of entertainment I've seen in a long while. It pretty much had something meant to pander to everyone who might chance upon it.

But... it was also a damn good movie because of it. Because they didn't just throw those elements there haphazardly, but used that cold, calculating mentality to place them in there, while weaving a good story around them.

Finn vs. Harry...I mean Indy fans vs. Disney....

You know. A picture's worth a thousand words.
https://giant.gfycat.com/WigglyBoringCaecilian.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FordFan

Well-known member
Finn said:
While Indy's had a variety of sidekicks over the years, they've never really been there to "draw in the younger audiences". The movies are called "Indiana Jones and the..." and the man in the hat himself has been the draw. Such was the case even with KotCS. While Mutt was there, he hardly featured in the marketing.

Hardly featured in the marketing? What are you talking about?

Labeouf was featured in 80% of the promotions for the movie. Spielberg groomed him in "Eagle Eye" and "Transformers" before giving him the role. He was completely brought in to appeal to a younger audience.
 

Major West

Member
What I hope happens, is that this fifth movie is the Indy swansong for Ford, and if it turns out to be an entertaining 'greatest hits' like TFA, that would work for me. Then maybe 2-3 years later, Disney reboot the series with a new actor, and set in the 1930s. I really don't want the son of Indy carrying on in more modern times. The series works best in the original pulp setting of the 1930s.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
FordFan said:
Hardly featured in the marketing? What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the thing I'm talking about. When you looked at ads plastered all over the place back then, whose face was it who was selling the movie? Shia's? Nope, very much Ford's.
 

Lambonius

New member
Finn said:
I'm talking about the thing I'm talking about. When you looked at ads plastered all over the place back then, whose face was it who was selling the movie? Shia's? Nope, very much Ford's.
Yes, of course the "face" of the film was Ford, but Mutt was still absolutely everywhere in the marketing campaign. The absurdly large numbers of (jacketless) Mutt action figures (to name just one example) even became something of a running joke in the collecting community, as it was a classic example of their misguided expectations for the popularity of that character.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Lambonius said:
Yes, of course the "face" of the film was Ford, but Mutt was still absolutely everywhere in the marketing campaign. The absurdly large numbers of (jacketless) Mutt action figures (to name just one example) even became something of a running joke in the collecting community, as it was a classic example of their misguided expectations for the popularity of that character.
Must be a stateside thing. Internationally, Mutt was pretty much absent.
 

Johnny Nys

Member
When it comes to marketing, Indy has always been kind of absent here in Belgium. I mean, we don't even have the Young Indy DVD's (I mean an edition with Dutch subtitles) except volume 1. But I still have the popcorn box saved from when I went to see KotCS and it very much features Shia.

25757115310_fe4321e64f.jpg
26004016466_681dee7353.jpg


IF that can count as marketing, of course ...
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Johnny Nys said:
IF that can count as marketing, of course...
It definitely does.

Well, it seems like I was in bit of a bubble. In any case, since Mutt certainly didn't become a fan favorite, I wonder what this'll mean for Indy 5. Try a different sidekick this time, bank it all on Ford, or take the third option?
 

Johnny Nys

Member
Mutt could be avoided if it becomes a prequel to KotCS, the way ToD is a prequel to Raiders. Though I doubt they'll do that. Visually it might still (or just) be believable that an almost ten year older Ford could play a one or two year younger Indy, but I'm going by that one quote from Ford about how "he's seen something. Remember those are the only witness to what he's seen. That's kind of interesting." Okay, that was back in 2008 right after the last movie, but still, it resonated with me, like there were already some tangible ideas behind it.
 

seasider

Active member
If Mutt does come back for Indy 5, I don't see Shia returning. He more or less burned his bridge with Spielberg when he publicly trashed KOTCS in an interview and Harrison Ford later called him a "F--ing idiot" in a later interview in response to what he said.
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
Johnny Nys said:
Mutt could be avoided if it becomes a prequel to KotCS,
It's easy enough to avoid Mutt without making this a prequel. Mutt will be a grown man by the time Indy 5 takes place, and it's perfectly believable that he's not hanging out with his father all the time. Mutt could simply have a life of his own, off-screen. I can imagine Indy briefly mentioning Mutt (like perhaps telling somebody, "You remind me of my son"), just for the sake of acknowledging the character, but beyond that, they really don't need to work him into the story.
 

The Reaper

New member
Duaner said:
I've argued this before on here (and it bugs me to see it come up again) so won't go beyond this one post about it, but "bringing Indy back to the place where the original inspiration comes from" means taking him back to the 1930s and the old cliffhanger serials popular at the time - not a 1960s spy setting. I don't deny there is James Bond influence in the Indiana Jones films, but they were not the "original inspiration."

Yes, it was. Spielberg has said so many times and so has Lucas. George told Stevie "Hey, they won't let you direct a Bond film but I got something that's just like him but better."
 

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
I totally agree but due to Harrison's age changes must be made. Minor change if the rest of the plot is worthwhile.

When they'll reboot the series it certainly has to go back in the 30s but no disregard what has already happen.
 

11YearsLater

Well-known member
If I were advising the screenwriter of Indy 5, I would tell him the following:

1. Set the main part of the movie in the late 60s. Indy 4 took place in 1957, this movie will be released 11 years after that one, so 1968 would make perfect sense. The 1970s seem way too modern for Indiana Jones.

2. Don't reuse any supporting characers from any of the previous movies. No Short Round, and no Mutt! Nobody wants to see Indy as a family man. Ok, a Marion cameo could work.

3. Multiple timelines. Set about 2/3 of the movie in 1968 featuring Harrison Ford and about 1/3 of the movie in the late 1920s featuring a young actor playing Indiana.

4. Treat Indy 5 as both the end of the Indy series starring Ford and the beginning of the new Indy series starring a young actor (who plays Indy in the 1920s timeline).
 

Jonesy9906753

Well-known member
I've had some time to think about what may make this movie work. Ive got some Indy V ideas to run by you guys here, let's see where this goes...

-Re-introducing the title "Raiders of the ________" back into the franchise. This retro approach could serve as a way of establishing Indy V as a sequel to ROTLA rather than KOTCS, it may also drive the point that this is a film that is less Ford-centric if they are truly going the "pass the baton" route.

-Introducing us to new character(s) in first act that are led to the legendary archeologist, Indiana Jones. thus making him a necessary plot device to lead our new character(s) through the story. A better analogy for this would be if he were to have a role much like Han Solo's role in SW7.but more involved seeing as Indy should always remain the main protagonist in some way.

-Finding a central location we haven't explored in previous film installments, Maybe they could push using a Snowy Climate or the more obvious choice, Atlantis.

-Finding a respectful way to at least mention Marion and Mutt if not involve them in the story.

I think the way this movie works is to make it more than a nostalgia trip, but rather a progressive step forward that can reinvigorate the people's love for the Adventure genre.

Thoughts?
:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top